UK hack reveals climate science’s ugly side, little more

Someone broke into the e-mail system of a British university and made off with …

Late last week, a collection of e-mails and documents began appearing on a variety of websites, purportedly a selection of a much larger cache of material obtained when hackers gained entry to the UK's Climatic Research Unit. All indications are that the documents are legitimate, and they reveal the scientists behind them as fully human: snarky, dismissive, prone to using colloquialisms instead of technical terms, and protective of their data—perhaps unethically protective. A lot of the material sounds very familiar to people working in scientific fields, but the response suggests that the e-mails may expand the gap between scientists and the public in this contentious field.

The scientific community became aware of the hacking when the perpetrators, fresh from their success, attempted to deface the popular Real Climate blog, turning it into a host for the archive. Shortly afterwards, the documents appeared at a site frequented by climate skeptics, and have since been mirrored elsewhere. This isn't the full trove of stolen files, as the hackers have only uploaded a selected portion of the material (presumably, items they felt made the scientists look especially bad), and it's possible that there was some manipulation of the contents. But the majority of the material appears to be legitimate; a New York Times reporter has tracked down some of the people who wrote the e-mails and confirmed their accuracy (the reporter's own correspondence with a number of the scientists made an appearance).

The unfortunate truth is that this is the way scientists talk. "Lab-speak is full of shortcuts," said physics researcher and Ars contributor Chris Lee. "The way I discuss things internally is not the same way as I present them to the rest of the scientific community."

But the questions don't end simply with whether the e-mails are legit, as the larger meaning of their contents isn't necessarily obvious. So far, they've acted a bit like a Rorschach test, revealing more about the person reading them than they do about the text's author, with reactions ranging from a collective yawn to hyperbolic claims that they reveal all of climate science as a complete fraud. In the end, there seem to be three issues that the e-mails illuminate that are worth discussing separately (there may be others buried in the archive, but there are three that seem obvious from initial reports).

Pardon the vernacular

One of the problems caused by the e-mails is that the scientists involved aren't discussing their data and its analysis using scientific terminology; instead, things come across more as what you might hear in an office environment. In short, the scientists sound like regular human beings (more on that below). When faced with two different data sets that provide different answers, the e-mails don't phrase things in terms of "what scientifically valid adjustment can be made to bring these two data sets into agreement?" Instead, the authors consider the problem in terms of how they can make the discrepancy go away.

Similarly, it's apparently widely recognized that, although tree ring data nicely tracks the temperature record for roughly a century, it diverges after 1960, when the modern rise in temperatures started. So, in a variety of papers, researchers have presented the instrument record, either superimposed or instead of the tree ring data, for periods where it's available (and clearly labelled the graphs accordingly). In the e-mails, this is described as a "trick" to "hide" the problem.

All of this is more pronounced when the data is preliminary, and researchers may not yet know how to interpret it or fit it into the larger body of existing data. That will get smoothed out by the time the data eventually gets published, but preparing data for publication is generally a small portion of an entire research project, and the e-mails largely reflect the longer period when confusion and frustration dominate.

As a result, the e-mails sound awful. But, the unfortunate truth is that this is the way scientists talk. "Lab-speak is full of shortcuts," said physics researcher and Ars contributor Chris Lee. "The way I discuss things internally is not the same way as I present them to the rest of the scientific community." And my experience from biology is that if I heard a coworker mention they had a trick to get better data from mouse embryos, I'd assume they were talking about a microscopy technique, not scientific fraud.

Scientists behaving badly

It isn't just research and presentation techniques that get discussed in terms that might seem more typical of an office conversation; scientists refer to each other in terms that would sound familiar around a water cooler. People smart enough to get a PhD in extremely technical fields are routinely derided as idiots when, by any objective standard, they're extremely bright and accomplished. Simple errors are treated as moral failings. Researchers become emotionally invested in their own ideas and treat their critics to withering attacks.

All of that is on display in the e-mails, where there's no shortage of snark and personal insult.

And that's just within the climatology community. Because of the public controversy, the work of climatologists has been actively questioned by people with varying degrees of relevant expertise, and the language used for some of those critics is especially scathing.

The public scrutiny plays out in other ways, as well. Instead of simply being concerned with how the scientific community—which is used to tentativeness and uncertainties—will perceive the work, some of the documents suggest that scientists were also concerned with how the public would perceive the latest results. A few of the e-mails hint that researchers may have chosen to present some information with this public perception in mind, which clearly isn't the best way to conduct scientific communications.

Whose data is it, anyway?

The battle with the skeptic community also plays out in a problematic way when it comes to the data access. Researchers are supposed to provide data to their peers once it is published in the scientific literature. But this straightforward rule turns out to be rather complicated in real-world practice. Scientists tend try to limit the spread of their data, lest some other lab scoop them by publishing on the same topic. International collaborations may involve a mix of dozens of published and unpublished data sources, with different rules governing disclosure of government-funded data in each of them.

Data may also be poorly labeled, poorly archived, and require significant effort to get into any shape where they'd be intelligible to anyone outside the research group that gathered them. All of that makes data sharing difficult under ideal circumstances.

But the circumstances in climatology community are anything but ideal. What emerges from the e-mails is a community that feels under siege, and not interested in cooperating with a community that it suspects is not interested in a good-faith effort to understand the research (there are some obvious parallels to the Lenski-Conservapedia spat). Some of the mails reveal what appears to be a truculent disregard for scientific ethics when it comes to providing data to critics.

Again, these problems happen in other fields. (Rumor at one of my former employees was that the National Institutes of Health had to contact a researcher's department chair in order to force him to share reagents that the NIH funded him to generate.) But that certainly doesn't mean they're not problems.

A double standard?

The document trove makes it clear that scientists communicate on three levels: in common and emotional terminology during personal conversation, which gets translated to detached and technical terms when writing papers, which (ideally) is phrased in cautious language and analogy when presented to the public. The hackers have basically short-circuited that process, and given the public a window into the messy world of day-to-day scientific communications.

And boy, does it look ugly. The public and political contentiousness of climate science imbued everything with a sense of defensiveness and frustration that made it all look worse.

In the end, this appears to be how scientists act during their personal communications in other scientific fields—one blog post pointed out that similar phrasing appeared in Newton's personal letters. But that probably won't matter, simply because the public doesn't care about those other fields. In the Ars forum discussion of matters, one reader expressed this plainly:

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. What these e-mails show is a serious lack of professionalism. If this was research on the mating rituals of ants I wouldn't care.

This may be a double-standard (in fact, it's clearly a double-standard, with one set of rules for climatology, and another for other fields), but that doesn't change the fact that this is how the majority of the public is likely to feel.

The irony here is that a variety of science outreach efforts have focused on exposing the public to the human side of science, in the hope that it would seem more exciting and approachable. The e-mails make it clear that science's status as a human endeavor cuts both ways.

Originally posted by Sifaka:There is no smoking gun in the released data. If nothing else this proves the tin-foil hat crowd wrong. If a great left-wing liberal conspiracy existed surely it would be in the e-mails.

Even if there is/was various conspiring found in the hacked files, it doesn't change obvious fact. Greenland is still thawing out and arctic glaciars are still melting. The climate *is* changing.

In general though, scientists can be very capable of being sell outs, frauds, and liars. The stem cell papers fiasco a few years back is a classic example of this.

And still I'm no more knowledgeable about what to believe. Part of the problem with modern science today is too many conflicting views which are borne from weak scientific study. I've read nothing concrete that argues one way or the other for climate change.

And boy, does it look ugly. The public and political contentiousness of climate science imbued everything with a sense of defensiveness and frustration that made it all look worse.

In the end, this appears to be how scientists act during their personal communications in other scientific fields—one blog post pointed out that similar phrasing appeared in Newton's personal letters. But that probably won't matter, simply because the public doesn't care about those other fields. In the Ars forum discussion of matters, one reader expressed this plainly:

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. What these e-mails show is a serious lack of professionalism. If this was research on the mating rituals of ants I wouldn't care.This may be a double-standard (in fact, it's clearly a double-standard, with one set of rules for climatology, and another for other fields), but that doesn't change the fact that this is how the majority of the public is likely to feel.

Perhaps this is because ant mating rituals won't create a trillion dollar industry like climate change will through scaremongering.

I hate to break it to you Timmer (and Arsians) but when your field is trying to scare the world shitless, you'd better make sure your record is pristine.

Part of the problem with modern science today is too many conflicting views which are borne from weak scientific study.

Normally not a huge problem. One scientist will massage his data in a way that the article is completely wrong and a dozen arch-enemies from other universities will swoop down to shoot holes into his statements and try to prove him wrong.

That's the great thing about science. You cannot trust articles but you normally can be sure that a wrong paper will be shot down in relatively short time. (exceptions prove the rule)

Now the problem with climate change is that its horribly complex and predictions of the future have so many variables that you can as well murder a virgin and read from the blood. You cannot really prove anything wrong and the incentive is clearly to be a bit on the sensational side to get more exposure of your ideas.

Because of that I believe that the earth was pretty warm in the last decades. I believe that men is responsible for it. But if a scientist tells me that southern italy will have 20% less rain, 2.34 degree celsius more median temperature and 15.6% less grain per hektar in 2050 he pretty much can go fuck himself.

BuckG - The stem cell debacle was a perfect example of the way science works. One group published a bunch of great work that nobody could reproduce and was called out for it. If it were a long-running conspiracy among ALL stem cell researchers that was blown open, that would be something entirely different. It's not really possible for a huge conspiracy in the scientific community, eventually reality takes over.

I think the case for man-made global warming is convincing, I know people act like this all the time, and there isn't evidence people actually acted on this.

That being said, this is still bad news for that research movement. The Bush administration took a ton of heat for allowing both sides of the argument to be heard. The lead of the research under that administration always claimed he was muzzled. In fact, he expressed this view in over 500 speeches during the administration, and wasn't fired, making you wonder if "muzzled" means the other side gets a turn to speak too.

Now I wouldn't say any of this makes global warming not exist, I bet it does. Still, if scientists deny opposing scientists raw data, boycott journals who publish their papers, complain that the papers are not peer reviewed while trying to prevent peer review, etc, that's bad news. The goal is to debate and win the debate, not to lock out the other side from speaking. At least I hope that's the goal, although the former Miss California must wonder if being punished for expressing a dissenting view is the direction our country is going.

I think the case for man-made global warming is convincing, I know people act like this all the time, and there isn't evidence people actually acted on this.

That being said, this is still bad news for that research movement. The Bush administration took a ton of heat for allowing both sides of the argument to be heard. The lead of the research under that administration always claimed he was muzzled. In fact, he expressed this view in over 500 speeches during the administration, and wasn't fired, making you wonder if "muzzled" means the other side gets a turn to speak too.

Now I wouldn't say any of this makes global warming not exist, I bet it does. Still, if scientists deny opposing scientists raw data, boycott journals who publish their papers, complain that the papers are not peer reviewed while trying to prevent peer review, etc, that's bad news. The goal is to debate and win the debate, not to lock out the other side from speaking. At least I hope that's the goal, although the former Miss California must wonder if being punished for expressing a dissenting view is the direction our country is going.

Originally posted by Oelph:And still I'm no more knowledgeable about what to believe. Part of the problem with modern science today is too many conflicting views which are borne from weak scientific study. I've read nothing concrete that argues one way or the other for climate change.

If you're ignorant (i mean that literallly, not as an insult) of climate science, then you simply must not read Ars or any other big-name science publications at all. Really.

Try Nature or Science, or if those are too challenging at least Scientific American or Discover. These and many more are constantly publishing articles about biodiversity or ocean acidification or alternative fuel, which hinge on our knowledge of climate. The "conflicting views" you mention are mostly within these sub-fields, and they're mostly a good thing because science resolves arguments through rigor and hard data.

I think the case for man-made global warming is convincing, I know people act like this all the time, and there isn't evidence people actually acted on this.

That being said, this is still bad news for that research movement. The Bush administration took a ton of heat for allowing both sides of the argument to be heard. The lead of the research under that administration always claimed he was muzzled. In fact, he expressed this view in over 500 speeches during the administration, and wasn't fired, making you wonder if "muzzled" means the other side gets a turn to speak too.

Now I wouldn't say any of this makes global warming not exist, I bet it does. Still, if scientists deny opposing scientists raw data, boycott journals who publish their papers, complain that the papers are not peer reviewed while trying to prevent peer review, etc, that's bad news. The goal is to debate and win the debate, not to lock out the other side from speaking. At least I hope that's the goal, although the former Miss California must wonder if being punished for expressing a dissenting view is the direction our country is going.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Admitted that they can't find any data that supports their theory:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Deleted evidence that didn't support their theory:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Doctored the numbers to support their case by picking and choosing data:

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

Issolated anyone that didn't agree with them:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

That is far from "little else" people. Combine this with the convenient deletion of temperature data that cannot be analysed now, the hockey stick, the drowning polar bears (which the polar bear population is going up, not down) and more, Global Warming is a scam. Glad we found out for sure now before we destroyed the world's economies for nothing....

BS science is BS science no matter where it comes from. There is no historical increase in temperature that isn't normal and no change in temperature during the "carbon years" of humanity that isn't explained by standard variations in temperature.

What surprises me is the people approached agree that the email contents are actually theirs and not edited. No one seems to be even trying to deny what these emails say. They might be bastards behind your back but they are still surprisingly honest about their failings.

In the end, this appears to be how scientists act during their personal communications in other scientific fields—one blog post pointed out that similar phrasing appeared in Newton's personal letters. But that probably won't matter, simply because the public doesn't care about those other fields. In the Ars forum discussion of matters, one reader expressed this plainly:

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. What these e-mails show is a serious lack of professionalism. If this was research on the mating rituals of ants I wouldn't care.

I think you took this quote the wrong way. I think he was saying that he doesn't care if the subject was climate change or mating rituals of ants, in both instances it shows a serious lack of professionalism.

quote:

The scientific community became aware of the hacking when the perpetrators, fresh from their success, attempted to deface the popular Real Climate blog, turning it into a host for the archive. Shortly afterwards, the documents appeared at a site frequented by climate skeptics, and have since been mirrored elsewhere.

The Real Climate admin *says* there was an attempted hack. Proof hasn't been provided, and the admin for WattsUpWithThat.com says it's more likely that the perps simply tried to post a comment that got picked up in the moderation queue, just like they did to WUWT, which was embargoed it at the moderation level, and which was exactly the same as the comment that went public at the Air Vent.

quote:

This isn't the full trove of stolen files, as the hackers have only uploaded a selected portion of the material (presumably, items they felt made the scientists look especially bad), and it's possible that there was some manipulation of the contents. But the majority of the material appears to be legitimate; a New York Times reporter has tracked down some of the people who wrote the e-mails and confirmed their accuracy (the reporter's own correspondence with a number of the scientists made an appearance).

There is some reasonable speculation, supported by circumstances, that the zip archive was collated by someone in or affiliated with CRU in response to Steve McIntyre's Freedom of Information request that ended up being officially denied on Nov 13 (last email in the archive is dated Nov 12, and the archive is named FOI2009.zip). This may have been either data that would have been turned over had the FOI request been approved, or possibly, given some of the content, data that was marked as something that *shouldn't* be FOI'd. At this point, it was either intentionally leaked, or just as reasonably, simply left on a world facing server by accident or intentionally as an impromptu file share, where an observant visitor found it.

Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:I hate to break it to you Timmer (and Arsians) but when your field is trying to scare the world shitless, you'd better make sure your record is pristine.

Do you also rally against physicists and astronomers? Aren't you deeply worried that their weird fascination with near-earth object (NEO) collisions and gamma-ray bursts and rare high-energy particles is one big scare-mongering money grab?

Originally posted by TokamakH3:BuckG - The stem cell debacle was a perfect example of the way science works. One group published a bunch of great work that nobody could reproduce and was called out for it. If it were a long-running conspiracy among ALL stem cell researchers that was blown open, that would be something entirely different. It's not really possible for a huge conspiracy in the scientific community, eventually reality takes over.

Eventually.

But depending on the field, this could take years, and the damage a lie or fudge can do can be immense both politically and financially.

I do agree with your sentiment in general. Some of the best conferences I've been at were ones where an academic from the crowd has called out speakers when certain statements were made as fact, and ended up being such things.

I find the whole scientific process extremely fascinating as a whole. Keeping an eye out for shills and liars is an unfortunate side of it though, and something we should never ever be naive to...

This reminds me of the 1970's, where the projections were that we were headed toward global cooling, complete with bar charts illustrating how temperatures had been steadily cooling for the past hundred years. Now, today we have bar charts purporting the opposite trend--ah, I think the emails are fairly revealing in this case. For the most part, so-called climate science doesn't know wtf it is talking about. How could these emails have read any differently?

(Please, those who have taken religious vows from the Church of Global Warming need not reply. Please.)

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:*Yawn* So no international conspiracy or outright fraud? Just frustrated name-calling and usual workplace colloquialisms? How trifling.

C'mon, where's that huge paper trail showing all the illegitimate grants that somehow get funneled from politicians through NSF into the hands of self-serving climatologists? I keep asking for that.

Oh, no evidence for such a conspiracy? NSF, NIH, and other public granting institutions actually budget and review and distribute funds in a relatively fair manner? Whodathunkit...

This comment was edited by mathrockbrock on November 23, 2009 20:57

Jeez, its NOT a conspiracy in that people are working together to lie about global warming, its that the people in power all believe in it, and will not give any money for research that would prove it wrong.

If you have 10 people on a committee all believe that global warming is real, are they more likely to A) give money to somebody who is a denier, or B) give that money to somebody who is a believer. All the evidence is that B is true.

And its not just in climate science, but all facets of science. Alternative theories are never given money- just ones that the "mainstream" subscribes too. This is the problem with public financed research- its easily biased. Just look at the AIDS debate.

quote:

Originally posted by BuckG:Even if there is/was various conspiring found in the hacked files, it doesn't change obvious fact. Greenland is still thawing out and arctic glaciars are still melting. The climate *is* changing.

Yes, its ALWAYS changing (and remember this started out as Global Cooling then Global Warming). That's not what is being debated. Its whether A) man is causing it, and B) its a bad thing, and C) can man actually do anything about it.

And based on the evidence out there, the answers are no, no, and no. And given the fact the the Global Warming believers were wrong (temps haven't increased as predicted), I think its safe to say its bunk science. Which is not surprising because it was always driven by politics and not by actual science.

Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:I hate to break it to you Timmer (and Arsians) but when your field is trying to scare the world shitless, you'd better make sure your record is pristine.

Do you also rally against physicists and astronomers? Aren't you deeply worried that their weird fascination with near-earth object (NEO) collisions and gamma-ray bursts and rare high-energy particles is one big scare-mongering money grab?

Originally posted by BuckG:Even if there is/was various conspiring found in the hacked files, it doesn't change obvious fact. Greenland is still thawing out and arctic glaciars are still melting. The climate *is* changing.

That being said, the fact that the climate is changing is kind of like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west... it's a fait accompli, but doesn't tell us much of anything on its own.

Originally posted by apple4ever:Jeez, its NOT a conspiracy in that people are working together to lie about global warming, its that the people in power all believe in it, and will not give any money for research that would prove it wrong.

If you have 10 people on a committee all believe that global warming is real, are they more likely to A) give money to somebody who is a denier, or B) give that money to somebody who is a believer. All the evidence is that B is true.

And its not just in climate science, but all facets of science. Alternative theories are never given money- just ones that the "mainstream" subscribes too. This is the problem with public financed research- its easily biased. Just look at the AIDS debate.

Your post is meaningless rhetoric without a paper trail. A lot of what we're discussing involves public institutions and decisions made by international scientific bodies. Show me how the money changes hands. Like, with factual numbers. Or is it too much to ask for anything but baseless rantings?

Hmmm. I have to say that I've been following this from the start. I even downloaded the archive the first thing it was available and looked through the emails myself.

I agree with you that the emails demonstrate that there is /no/ grand conspiracy. But I am troubled by your eagerness to give the scientists involved a free pass. "Everybody does it" is an excuse I learned not to use when I was five.

There was some very unethical behavior. There is also the reality that this publicly-funded data is being kept out of the hands of "skeptics" -- who are an important part of the scientific process. And there is the conscious hijacking of the peer-review process.

Personally, I expect to see more openness come out of this. And I would expect some disciplinary action against some of the scientists involved.

Originally posted by apple4ever:Yes, its ALWAYS changing (and remember this started out as Global Cooling then Global Warming). That's not what is being debated. Its whether A) man is causing it, and B) its a bad thing, and C) can man actually do anything about it.

And based on the evidence out there, the answers are no, no, and no. And given the fact the the Global Warming believers were wrong (temps haven't increased as predicted), I think its safe to say its bunk science. Which is not surprising because it was always driven by politics and not by actual science.

And even worse, how can it be science when you are willing to break the law to hide your raw data and methods from those who would duplicate your study? Unless you're try to do things like "hide the decline."

Personally, I expect to see more openness come out of this. And I would expect some disciplinary action against some of the scientists involved.

I half expect the wagons to be circled even tighter. The UK government is heavily invested in AGW as a political issue, an ugly public investigation into the leading uni and researchers in the field and the chance of casting doubt on AGW at all would be highly embarrassing, especially given the leading role the Brown government is trying to take going into Copenhagen.

Originally posted by 0tim0:There was some very unethical behavior. There is also the reality that this publicly-funded data is being kept out of the hands of "skeptics" -- who are an important part of the scientific process. And there is the conscious hijacking of the peer-review process.

It's important to make the distinction between actual skeptics who set bounds on reasonable evidence, and pseudo-skeptics like the followers of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who contribute nothing but political spin and noise. It's NOT worthwhile to hand over decades' worth of hard data to a vocal political group that's unqualified in the science.

There was some very unethical behavior. There is also the reality that this publicly-funded data is being kept out of the hands of "skeptics" -- who are an important part of the scientific process. And there is the conscious hijacking of the peer-review process.

what is unethical? the "trick" was thoroughly explained by the scientists themselves as some statistical thing that excludes a particular segment of data from a study whose authors recommend that this segment be excluded

quote:

Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:I hate to break it to you Timmer (and Arsians) but when your field is trying to scare the world shitless, you'd better make sure your record is pristine.

Do you also rally against physicists and astronomers? Aren't you deeply worried that their weird fascination with near-earth object (NEO) collisions and gamma-ray bursts and rare high-energy particles is one big scare-mongering money grab?

Originally posted by BuckG:Even if there is/was various conspiring found in the hacked files, it doesn't change obvious fact. Greenland is still thawing out and arctic glaciars are still melting. The climate *is* changing.

In general though, scientists can be very capable of being sell outs, frauds, and liars. The stem cell papers fiasco a few years back is a classic example of this.

Ever wonder why it is called Greenland? Maybe the earth is not yet as warm as it was ~1000 years ago? and maybe it got to this previous warm period without the help of humans?

In all of the talk about this incident, I'm a bit surprised at how little weight is being given to one aspect. Here we have people with a clear political motivation (climate-change denial) committing an act of cyberterrorism against those they oppose. Whatever those scientists might have done to "massage the data" (probably to make some arcane minor point and not to prove or disprove the entirety of anthropogenic climate change) absolutely pales in comparison to the dishonest behavior of the hackers themselves. Have they published their own private conversations, to show that every exchange they have is free from bias or other human failings? Of course not, because they're cowardly little hypocrites who don't have a leg to stand on in an honest debate.

It's important to make the distinction between actual skeptics who set bounds on reasonable evidence, and pseudo-skeptics like the followers of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who contribute nothing but political spin and noise. It's NOT worthwhile to hand over decades' worth of hard data to a vocal political group that's unqualified in the science.

The law says otherwise. And it's beneficial to both science and public discourse that primary data not remain locked away in the ivory towers of academia, available only to those who know the secret Ph.D handshake.

Originally posted by Obdurodon:In all of the talk about this incident, I'm a bit surprised at how little weight is being given to one aspect. Here we have people with a clear political motivation (climate-change denial) committing an act of cyberterrorism against those they oppose. Whatever those scientists might have done to "massage the data" (probably to make some arcane minor point and not to prove or disprove the entirety of anthropogenic climate change) absolutely pales in comparison to the dishonest behavior of the hackers themselves. Have they published their own private conversations, to show that every exchange they have is free from bias or other human failings? Of course not, because they're cowardly little hypocrites who don't have a leg to stand on in an honest debate.

We don't know that CRU was "hacked". No proof to that effect has been provided.